On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-intc-irqpin.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-intc-irqpin.c
> >> @@ -283,6 +283,9 @@ static int intc_irqpin_irq_set_type(struct irq_data
> >> *d, unsigned int type)
> >> static int intc_irqpin_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int on)
> >> {
> >> struct intc_irqpin_priv *p = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> >> + int hw_irq = irqd_to_hwirq(d);
> >> +
> >> + irq_set_irq_wake(p->irq[hw_irq].requested_irq, on);
> >
> > Are you sure that this does not make lockdep unhappy due to lock
> > nesting?
>
> Actually I did see one lockdep warning, so I'm aware we're probably gonna
> need a similar solution like commit a0a8bcf4670c2c69 ("gpiolib: irqchip:
> use different lockdep class for each gpio irqchip")?
>
> To be honest, these lockdep warnings aren't helping much here: on embedded
> we typical have several stacked interrupt controllers, so wake-up settings
> have to propagate from the bottom to the top of the stack.
But ignoring them does not help much either, right?
> E.g. on sh73a0/kzm9g gpio-keys wake-up goes through 3 interrupt controllers:
> pcf875x -> renesas-intc-irqpin -> gic.
So, yes a seperate locking class for that intc trainwreck is probably
required.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
